Md. Counties Take Aim at Baltimore Aid Proposal

Maryland's deal to boost state aid to the struggling Baltimore
schools got off to a rocky start in the legislature as leaders of
several other counties said they would like more money, too.

"This has to be equitable, not just all Baltimore and just a penny
in the pot for everybody else," said Sen. Ida G. Ruben, a Democrat from
Montgomery County, a Washington suburb.

Leonard Lucchi, an aide to the county executive in Prince George's
County, also outside Washington, added that schools there ought to be
given an extra $180 million since they have the second-highest
percentage of poor students in the state after Baltimore.

The state got itself into a jam after it came to terms with only
Baltimore officials over a school finance lawsuit the district filed
against the state. The district would get more aid and the state would
get greater control over the district under the deal forged last
November by Gov. Parris N. Glendening, Mayor Kurt L. Schmoke, and Nancy
S. Grasmick, the state schools chief. ("Deal Gives State New Role in Baltimore
Schools, Boosts Aid," Nov. 20, 1996.)

A House bill that would make the deal law earmarks $254 million for
Baltimore schools over five years. In addition to settling the school
finance action, the deal would bring to a close a decade-long suit
against Baltimore brought by a Maryland disability-rights organization
charging that special education students were denied guaranteed
services.

The plan, which looked like it killed several birds with one stone,
would also put to rest a disagreement over the management of the
104,000-student Baltimore city schools. The agreement calls for
replacing Baltimore's superintendent and school board with a team of
executives and a new school board selected by the mayor and the
governor.

Searching for Solution

But what looked like a solution has turned into a politically
charged problem--one that must be addressed quickly in the legislative
session that opened last month. Lawmakers must ratify the agreement
before the session ends April 7 or the dispute would return to the
courts.

Officials from throughout Maryland and many state legislators say
the state's deal with Baltimore is not a good way to address school
funding problems.

John Gary, the Anne Arundel County executive, said the legislature
should not feel as if it is under pressure from the court. The
governor's settlement, he said, usurps the legislature's authority to
design its own funding system.

And further complicating the issue beyond the resistance from across
the state is a plan by Gov. Glendening to cut personal income taxes in
the state by 10 percent over three years--a measure that would make
substantial new money for schools much harder to find.

State leaders have consistently argued that the problems of
Baltimore, home to half of the state's poor children and many troubled
schools, demand unique solutions.

Late last month, the state education department announced that 10
more Baltimore schools where students scored poorly on state tests
would have to improve or face state intervention. That brings to
50--one-third of all city schools--the number of Baltimore schools now
targeted for state action.

"We need people to understand the dire straits Baltimore is in," Ray
Feldmann, a spokesman for Gov. Glendening, said. "Any long-term
negative outcomes will far outweigh what we are putting into this
agreement."

Ms. Grasmick contended that Baltimore is relinquishing a significant
amount of power in exchange for the new money, an arrangement she
suggests most counties would not tolerate.

Baltimore Expects Shakeup

Already, the agreement has prompted a leadership shake-up in
Baltimore. Superintendent Walter G. Amprey announced last month that he
plans to resign his office before his contract expires if the
settlement is ratified.

Most of the city's legislators are pushing the deal, though they
plan to file an amended bill that would strengthen bargaining rights
for teachers in the district's schools and make other
modifications.

Ronald A. Peiffer, an assistant state superintendent, and other
supporters of the agreement say they are optimistic that the bill can
still make its way through the House.

But as lawmakers have already shown, any prediction of what will
happen on school funding is nothing more than that--a guess.